Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasn't been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just don't have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. how do you think will really keep nato going? to sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions? >> in intervening event poses a threat. we thought a little research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the united states is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. either nato getting together going forward are not. the threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. but i think it's going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
the french from being able to come into a country. they need to be able to stop nato from coming into countries on the continent. europe would not allow other foreigners to do this in europe. why would the africans allow this? they should not allow foreigners who colonized the bus and insulate us in the past to do this. these are our enemies. what is the true motive of the french for coming into mali? it is certainly not because they care. they are former colonial masters, people that enslaved us. these are our enemies. what is the reason they have come? certainly not because they care. guest: i think we are in agreement that most people -- the u.s. administration, the state department has noted in a statement that general ham said earlier also, everybody would like this to be an african-led solution. it's the only way to go ahead. unfortunately, although many of the african countries talk a great deal about getting involved, with the exception of a few. niger, i mentioned earlier. morocco has been leading on this, raising awareness on this issue for some time. mali, a year-and-a
could say about him? the nato bombing killed ultimately, if you include all of the allied movement, over 30,000 people ended up dying. if you look at the fall of libya and what he did, some people have our dimension it has the best health-care system and africa and the best literacy. people throughout africa said they did support ghadafi and did not want to bomb. libya has accepted sharing resources with others, unlike other regions like nigeria. there were given shelter and food. he supported them as brothers when they came in. not only that, but before the u.s. had basically control over most of the communications systems and africa, he put up several billion dollars for satellite systems so that africans would not have to pay the rental fees. the africans paid much less for communications across the country. i think you're giving a very one-sided picture of it. can you tell us what you think he did that was good and any criticism of the u.s. bombing? guest: there are a couple of good things i can say. one was the promotion of women in this society. he was very pronounced about that. w
. another thing to add, turkey is a nato ally of the u.s. and in the last morning the u.s. has dispatched hundreds of u.s. personnel, as well as patriot missiles near the border between turkey and syria to help protect turkey from aircraft, air strikes, missile strikes from syria. this gives you a little of the political background as rescue workers scramble in ankara in the wake of this deadly explosion near the u.s. embassy. john. >> and just this week so much going on in the region, going on in the world. the news of the israeli bomb strike in syria. news in the united states, hillary clinton's last day at the state department today. some significant events going on around the world. are these the types of things that authorities will be looking at to piece together if there was a motive behind whoever might be behind it? >> listen, no question that the tension in the region has been ratcheting up. not only because of the raging syrian civil war. with the u.s. backing the opposition and rebels, others like iran backing the syrian regime. under immense pressure and losing grund. but wit
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)